Piranesi and the Modern Age

Robert Maddox-Harle
{"title":"Piranesi and the Modern Age","authors":"Robert Maddox-Harle","doi":"10.1162/leon_r_02419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"there has been moral “regress” (p. 183). Racism and sexism in many countries has declined, but at the same time economic disparities have grown, and “political moralities” (p. 183) in some countries have shifted to entrenched conservative ideologies. They also point out that any sense of moral progress must be tempered by how modern industrial societies treat nonhuman animals as food. Groups, they note, could morally include animals, not exclude them. In this light they discuss moral progress theory, in which reality is biased toward progress by applying reason and informed information. The moral mind is flexible and can, rather than spin into violence with dehumanized reaction, approach inclusivity, they claim, as history shows. Kumar and Campbell say modern moral progress has been uneven, favoring some and excluding others, notably with patriarchy, gender discrimination, and social injustice, the last of which encompasses climate change. Their model of cultural moral progress shows how anything evolutionary is typically gradual, with headway at times but perhaps stasis elsewhere. They insist class structures are deliberately manipulated by the rich and powerful to subvert others, illustrating their notion of moral progress and regress. We see this in anthropogenic climate change and the slow response to avoiding disaster, since wealthy and powerful countries that have caused the problem benefit from producing and using massive amounts of fossil fuels. Moral progress concerning climate justice can be seen on the fringes within groups or political parties in some countries or institutions. In their plan for moral progress, dispersed egalitarian groups need greater social integration to prioritize the battle against misinformation fostering biases and ignorance. The end of the book is ironic, with the question of whether humans will become a better ape, but the text is a worthy example of reflective philosophy that could help transform societies for the better. pIrAnESI And ThE modErn AgE","PeriodicalId":93330,"journal":{"name":"Leonardo (Oxford, England)","volume":"44 1","pages":"444-445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leonardo (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_r_02419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

there has been moral “regress” (p. 183). Racism and sexism in many countries has declined, but at the same time economic disparities have grown, and “political moralities” (p. 183) in some countries have shifted to entrenched conservative ideologies. They also point out that any sense of moral progress must be tempered by how modern industrial societies treat nonhuman animals as food. Groups, they note, could morally include animals, not exclude them. In this light they discuss moral progress theory, in which reality is biased toward progress by applying reason and informed information. The moral mind is flexible and can, rather than spin into violence with dehumanized reaction, approach inclusivity, they claim, as history shows. Kumar and Campbell say modern moral progress has been uneven, favoring some and excluding others, notably with patriarchy, gender discrimination, and social injustice, the last of which encompasses climate change. Their model of cultural moral progress shows how anything evolutionary is typically gradual, with headway at times but perhaps stasis elsewhere. They insist class structures are deliberately manipulated by the rich and powerful to subvert others, illustrating their notion of moral progress and regress. We see this in anthropogenic climate change and the slow response to avoiding disaster, since wealthy and powerful countries that have caused the problem benefit from producing and using massive amounts of fossil fuels. Moral progress concerning climate justice can be seen on the fringes within groups or political parties in some countries or institutions. In their plan for moral progress, dispersed egalitarian groups need greater social integration to prioritize the battle against misinformation fostering biases and ignorance. The end of the book is ironic, with the question of whether humans will become a better ape, but the text is a worthy example of reflective philosophy that could help transform societies for the better. pIrAnESI And ThE modErn AgE
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮拉内西与现代
出现了道德上的“倒退”(第183页)。许多国家的种族主义和性别歧视有所减少,但与此同时,经济差距扩大了,一些国家的“政治道德”(第183页)已转向根深蒂固的保守意识形态。他们还指出,任何道德进步都必须受到现代工业社会如何将非人类动物视为食物的影响。他们指出,群体在道德上可以包容动物,而不是排斥它们。从这个角度来看,他们讨论了道德进步理论,在这个理论中,现实通过运用理性和知情信息而偏向于进步。他们声称,正如历史所表明的那样,道德思维是灵活的,不会因非人化的反应而陷入暴力,而是可以接近包容性。库马尔和坎贝尔说,现代道德进步是不平衡的,偏袒一些人,排斥另一些人,特别是父权制、性别歧视和社会不公正,最后一个包括气候变化。他们的文化道德进步模型表明,任何进化都是渐进的,有时会取得进展,但有时可能会停滞不前。他们坚持认为,阶级结构是由富人和有权有势的人故意操纵的,以颠覆其他人,这说明了他们对道德进步和倒退的看法。我们从人为的气候变化和对避免灾难的缓慢反应中看到了这一点,因为造成气候变化问题的富裕和强大国家从生产和使用大量化石燃料中获益。在一些国家或机构中,有关气候正义的道德进步可以在团体或政党的边缘看到。在他们的道德进步计划中,分散的平等主义团体需要更大的社会整合,以优先打击助长偏见和无知的错误信息。这本书的结尾带有讽刺意味,提出了人类是否会成为更好的猿类的问题,但这篇文章是反思哲学的一个有价值的例子,可以帮助社会向更好的方向转变。皮拉内西与现代
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Urban Intonation: Listening to the Rats of New York City Art as Enquiry: Theoretical Perspectives on Research in Art and Science Lichens: Toward a Minimal Resistance Life in the Posthuman Condition: Critical Responses to the Anthropocene Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1